No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for posts by Shoebox.

July 1, 2008

A Conservative SCOTUS? Horrors of Horrors!

by @ 5:03. Filed under Idiotorial of the Day.

So claims E. J. Dionne in his latest lament that the United States is founded on a set of laws rather than the whimsy and momentary brain flatulence of any given Congress or President.

First, Dionne claims that the Right’s last option is the court. He claims that via SCOTUS, the Right will obstruct the will of the people even once new “Progressive” measures, according to two UNNAMED “influential journalists” (at least in Dionne’s mind) “had been overwhelmingly approved both in Congress and at the polling booths.”

Dionne’s comments are laughable for so many reasons.

First, it’s the Left that has been using SCOTUS for years to create law out of whole cloth. The most obvious of these is Roe versus Wade. Additionally, Justices like Breyer think the Constitution isn’t enough for us. Breyer thinks we should look to foreign laws for insight and direction.

Second, Dionne uses the example of the Conservative court holding FDR’s New Deal Program at bay as evidence of how a Conservative court could be obstructive.   As with all good liberals I’m sure that Dionne believes that the outcome always justifies the means.   In Dionne’s mind, it is simply inconvenience that the Conservative judges were fighting the New Deal because they saw no place in the Constitution that the Federal government had authority to enact such legislation.   Heck, for the Left, it was the “right” thing to do, it didn’t matter if it was the Constitutional thing to do.

Finally, Dionne raises the  spectre that the Right could dismantle or block  issues that he believes could result in the undoing of America:

It’s not hard to imagine the cases that conservatives would bring against laws passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a President Barack Obama. Why wouldn’t a movement that has tried to eviscerate wetlands laws and the Endangered Species Act challenge cap-and-trade legislation aimed at dealing with global warming?

If Congress ever passed a “card-check” law to make it easier for unions to organize, those who never much liked the minimum wage or collective bargaining would certainly try to overturn the new labor right in court.

And what would be the legal fate of new regulations on banking called forth by the economic devastation of the subprime mess, or bank bailouts that may be necessary to keep capitalism on track, or mandatory mortgage renegotiations to keep citizens from being thrown out of their homes?

This is going to take a while but let’s look quickly at what Dionne is so fearful of:

Wetland law evisceration: I seem to remember the Constitution providing for a thing called Private Property. Confiscatory taking is another  Constitutional no no. Wetland laws violate both of those provisions.

Endangered Species Act: See “Wetland law Evisceration”

Cap and Trade: Do we really need to discuss that any further? OK, See “Wetland law Evisceration”

Card Check law: Dionne apparently falls into the category of “all votes should be private and counted, at least once, maybe more, unless they are for Republicans or when supporting direct employer/employee relations.”

“May be necessary to keep capitalism on track” – Here’s the dirty little secret, Capitalism works best when government stays out. Capitalism doesn’t need to be kept on track, government needs to quit trying to dictate outcomes. The folks in the old Soviet Union found out out poorly government planned economies worked. Heck, even the Chinese have had to open the doors, grudgingly so, to pieces of Capitalism so that their economy can grow to support their expanding population.

The Constitution has proven to be the most prescient document ever created by men. However, if Dionne is really so disappointed with the wisdom incorporated in it, the Framers even provided for a means to change it……by getting “overwhelming” votes from the People’s representatives followed by confirmation by the people. Of course, all of that takes time and may cause people to fully think through the implications of such a significant action.   Maybe, just maybe, that too was the Framer’s intent!

I wonder if the Framers ever forsaw people like Dionne. People who are so unappreciative and dismissive of their work while chosing to remain ignorant of what it actually contains?

June 30, 2008

President of the DOPES?

by @ 5:25. Filed under Energy.

 In early June, as the debate over rising gas prices was heating up, Barack Obama was quoted as saying:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

The “Greenest convention ever” is touting their 450 vehicle fleet of cars, 20% of which will be E85 vehicles. Even though the host city is far behind in their fundraising efforts, they convinced Coors to kick in the fuel for the E85 vehicles.

Watch the relief on the DNC’s Director of Transportation as he describes the benefit of having E85 fuel donated:

Yup, you heard it right! Andrew Sullivan, Director of Transportation for the DNC said”

I’m always up for free gas! Especially with prices being what they are today!

 

Gas prices an issue for the DNC? How can that be?

If the DNC’s presumptive nominee has any say about it, today’s gas prices will look like a bargain in the near future. The combination of no increased drilling, increasing taxes on oil companies, implementing cap and trade and suing sovereign nations, will do nothing but increase gas prices and further erode the pocketbooks of every American family!

Over at Redstate.com the term COPEC has been coined. COPEC stands for “Congresspersons Opposed To Petroleum Extraction in our Country.” Seeing as how most of the Republicans have finally gotten the message on oil exploration and domestic production, I propose COPEC be changed to simply DOPES, Democrats Opposed to Petroleum and for Energy Sacrifice. It seems fitting that Barack Obama will be the Presidential nominee for the DOPES!

As a complete aside, isn’t every drop of beer Coors makes “waste beer?”

June 26, 2008

Actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule…

by @ 15:08. Filed under Guns.

Said Peter Veckman in Ghost Busters as his conscience fought his libido over whether to take advantage of a possessed Dana or allow his chivalrous side to rule. Eventually, Bill Murray realized that rules were in fact rules and went on to save Sigourney Weaver.

Nancy Pelosi must be a Ghost Busters fan as she makes the “Actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule…” argument with regards to today’s Supreme Court’s ruling on handguns.

From TheHill.com

Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

“I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive,” Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. “I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”

While Justice Scalia may not have been as inclusive in his opinion as some would have liked, especially in the area of conceal and carry, there is no doubt that his opinion addresses the Framers inclination that gun ownership was desired for self defense. As opposed to Justice Scalia’s direct understanding of the Constitutional right to self defense, Nancy uses the “The Constitution is more of a guideline” argument by trotting back out her hope that there would still be ability for the DC to implement conceal and carry restrictions.

I have to admit that I’m torn by the possibilities of Nancy’s thinking. On the one hand I’m clearly not in favor of abridging and constitutional rights for any citizen who has the capability of rational thought and has not been previously found to abuse the right. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see Nancy is able to get the courts to agree that even Constitutional rights can be limited by putting the good of the public over that of the individual. If she is able to move the courts that way, perhaps we reopen that nasty Roe vs. Wade thingy and see if perhaps the imagined “Constitutional rights” that exist there could be abridged for the benefit of the public over the individual?

June 20, 2008

It’s Time to “Go To The Mattresses!”

by @ 15:39. Filed under Energy.

In their latest attempt to obfuscate any responsibility for high oil/gas prices, the Dems are now trying to lay the blame for the off shore drilling bans on President Bush.

On the Spot (CNSNews.com) – President’s Bush’s call on Wednesday for Congress to lift its 27-year moratorium on offshore drilling is an “example of typical Bush White House politics,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) told Cybercast News Service Thursday.

and

“What the president is doing is unfair to the American people to indicate, ‘We will let Congress do something about it,’ ” Reid said. “He has the authority to do it himself.”

Wait a minute! Isn’t “Unilateral Action” what the Dems have been scolding and denigrating President Bush over on a whole host of topics?

Regarding Iraq:

Senator Clinton excoriated President Bush July 10, 2007, for his “unilateral decision to rush to a preemptive war.” Just three weeks after his 2002 vote in favor of the authorization of military force, Edwards slammed Bush’s “gratuitous unilateralism, a determination to act alone for the sake of acting alone.” Kerry routinely blasted Bush’s “unilateral preemption” on the 2004 presidential campaign trail. In April, according to CNN, Reid “painted the President’s war policy as unilateral.”

Regarding the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia:

"Further, the President’s decision to act unilaterally in sending the FTA disregards three decades of established precedent under fast-track legislation, and demonstrates yet again his lack of respect for Congress.

The Dems even kept Congress in session during the winter recess just so that President Bush couldn’t “unilaterally” invoke his constitutional right to appoint recess appointments for judges.

President Bush could certainly have revoked the ban on offshore drilling.   If he had done so, the Democrats would once again be screaming about his “unilateral actions” and how they hadn’t been consulted.   Instead, as he often does, he is attempting to lead Congress to do the right thing.   He’s doing this by publicly making the case for the elimination of drilling restrictions.   He’s allowing the common sense of the American public to weigh on Congress, hoping that they see the light and decide to act in accordance with the public’s desire.

President Bush, may I humbly offer some advice:

The Democrats are in a corner on this issue.   They have no where to go but down (if that can even be imagined).   If you remove the drilling ban they will attempt to paint you as in the pocket of “Big Oil.”   So what?   You’re not running for reelection and you know better than anyone in Washington that expanded drilling is absolutely necessary regardless of any other efforts that some may want to explore to deal with our energy shortage.   I suggest you contact Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid and tell them that on Tuesday evening of next week you will have a national television address in which, you will tell the American public that you will sign an executive order eliminating the drilling ban.   With that done, the energy issue will hang over the Democrats like the Sword of Damocles.

Upon your notice Mr. President, the Democrats will have a decision to make.   They may choose to continue their petulant tirads, much like they have over funding for Iraq or supporting FISA. In the end they know that they will not only lose the issue, but stand a chance of reversing what should be an electoral success in November as the American public takes out its wrath on those who have purposely chosen to harm the welfare of their families.   On the other hand, they may take the advice of a frontier snake oil salesman who when asked how he managed to maintain his reputation after being run out of town after town across the frontier said:   “It’s simple.   When the crowd gathers with the rail to run me out of town, I get to the front of the mob and run, gesticulating my arms as if I’m a band leader.   That way, rather than being run out of town, I can tell people that I was leading the parade bidding me farewell for the next leg of my journey!”

Mr. President, please kick the last crutch out from under the Democrat’s excuses for not drilling.   As it regards energy and America’s need to dramatically increase our oil exploration it’s time to “Go To The Mattresses!”

Fairness Doctrine

by @ 5:14. Filed under Miscellaneous.

According to this article,Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is only 23 signatures away from getting a vote that would likely codify that any attempt by the FCC to reinstitute the “fairness doctrine” would only come as a result of a Congress action.

There are 9 Republicans and many Democrats that have yet to sign the discharge petition.   The list of unsigned Congresscritters is here.

If your Congresscritter is on the list, hit them up and get them to sign on to the discharge petition.   Why would any Congresscritter be afraid of the American people, voting with their ears, deciding what should be on their radio stations?

June 19, 2008

The Cat’s Out of the Bag

by @ 5:59. Filed under Energy.

While I don’t enjoy paying $4/gallon for gas, I have enjoyed watching the Democrats become human Gumby’s as they twist trying to find new reasons why the majority of the American public  are wrong when it comes to expanding drilling.

I figured that the game would continue to play and like good chess players, the Dems would work hard to avoid getting their king cornered.

I thought wrong.

The pressure on the Dems has surely increased,  evidently to the point of breaking, at least for some.   As recorded by Fox,at and around a press conference where the Dems were attempting to explain why they were smarter than the President and nearly all other Americans, the following was said:

You cannot drill your way out of this.

Current mantra of those beholden to the Envirowhackos by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming.

The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go.

Gee, I think I heard Charlie Crist was now on board Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling, you may want to get you’re updated talking points.

What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations.

Gee Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), last I looked the majority of the American people did want drilling to increase. Being a Democrat, I can only assume that you’re including dead people and illegal aliens in your counts of “majorities” just like you do when you count elections.

It’s like when I talk to my kids. Before we’re going to talk about dessert, we’ve got to talk about what’s on your plate. I hope I’m a little more successful with the oil industry than I am with my kids.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming. Well now Ed, I need to talk to you like I talked to my boys when they were 4….

Do it now, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Do nothing else until you complete this one simple takes that I have asked you to do multiple times!

Finally, the quote that is the Coupe de grace and shows the Dems true colors and just how much pressure they are facing is this quote, once again from Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling:

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

Sounds a lot like Maxine Waters a couple of weeks back when excoriating oil executives for a problem that the Dems have created:

Guess what this liberal will be all about? Socializing!

Not like it was a BIG secret but the cat’s out of the bag. The Left is all about envy.   They don’t want anyone to have it better than anyone else….everyone gets the same outcome regardless of what effort they’ve put into it.   The Dems are envious because a two bit tyrant, Hugo Chavez has managed not only to take full control of a country and kill all desent in only 9 short years but he’s also managed to line his personal pockets by “nationalizing” the oil companies.   The Dems want the same outcome.   The Dems want higher gas prices because they want to run the oil and gas companies and line their personal pockets.

Keep the government out of business. Send the Dems to the poor house!   Keep the pressure on them!
Drill here, drill now, pay less!

It’s A Theory…

by @ 5:20. Filed under Miscellaneous.

I saw this first yesterday and just couldn’t bring myself to post on it.   Today I see it picked up by nearly every Wire service and many blogs so…..I guess I have to ask.

The Smoking Gun  reports on a 52 year old woman suing Victoria’s Secret because some bling off her thong let lose and hit her in the eye.

Some thoughts and observations:

  • I looked all over the internet to find a picture of this lady; I couldn’t find one.   Does that make you as suspicious as me that safe loading limits may have been exceeded?
  • I don’t get the whole underwear line thing.   Whether I’m wearing boxers or briefs, the lines are what the lines are.   I don’t see them and if you do, well, you’re looking in the wrong place.
  • As part of my public service, if you’re prone to wearing thongs don’t.   Dr. Manny says they are bad for you.

My final thought, actually a question…How do you get your head in a position to get hit by flying bling from your underwear while you’re putting your underwear on?   The only answer I can come up with is that the name used in the lawsuit is an alias. The defendant is actually a Democrat Congress person  who was hit in the eye with the bling as she was trying to put her head up her ass to avoid hearing the public’s clamoring for increased domestic drilling.

At least that’s my theory.

June 18, 2008

Who’s Using the Boogieman?

by @ 9:15. Filed under Politics - National.

In yesterday’s tete-a-tete over terrorism policy, Barack Obama was quoted:

"What they are trying to do is what they’ve done every election cycle which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid, to win elections, that’s what they’re trying to do," Obama told reporters on a flight to Washington D.C.

Barack doesn’t understand the difference between talking candidly about issues and reality and waving the spectre of a boogieman in the dark.

Pot meet thyself!
Take a look at this new Democrat ad put out by Moveon.org:

See, this is waving a boogieman in the dark. Barack and any other “thinking” individual knows exactly what McCain’s comment was on the issue of “100 years in Iraq,” yet they won’t discuss the policy candidly.

Change? Twisting words and libeling your opponent…nope, looks like the same old Chicago politics that we’ve all come to laugh at.

Al, Al, Al

by @ 5:49. Filed under Global "Warming".

A year ago the King of Gorebal Warming, Al Gore himself, was reported to use energy in his house equal to that of 20 average homes.

Well, Al wasn’t going to be a hypocrite! He immediately went about making his house “green.” According to this report he went about adding…

solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork

However, instead of getting the “Most likely to be Kermit” award for his greening, something went wrong! Al’s energy usage went up 10%! Al now uses nearly 50% more energy, EACH MONTH, than the average household USES IN A YEAR!

The minute I read this article I knew exactly what had gone wrong. After changing his lighting over to the compact fluorescents I’m sure he doubled the number of fixtures so that he had enough light to actually see anything!

Better luck next year Al….We’ll be watching!

When Trying to Get Yourself Out of a Hole..First, Quit Digging

by @ 5:21. Filed under Politics - National.

Reuters reports  on yesterday’s back and forth between Obama and McCain regarding the War on Terrorism.

WASHINGTON – A defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain’s aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.

Well yes, why listen to anyone who isn’t you? Barack doesn’t want to hear about or go to Iraq, he knows those answers. He doesn’t want to hear about drilling for oil, he knows only more taxes will solve the energy problem. Barack doesn’t want to get insight from anyone…unless you happen to be a dictator or terrorism sponsor in some country that he considers “no threat.”

"In part because of their failed strategies, we’ve got bin Laden still sending out audio tapes, so I don’t think they have much standing to suggest that they’ve learned a lot of lessons from 9/11."

Yeah, I guess failure is what you would call the ability to prevent any domestic terror attacks since 9/11. Or that the number of total terrorism victims is down worldwide. Yup, sounds pretty awful!

“Let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated,” Obama said in the interview.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world,” he said.

Ummmmm, Barack, You do know that the guys who flew the planes died that day right? You also know that the folks in Guantanamo were captured on foreign soil right? I’m hoping you know that the one person suspected of being involved with 9/11, who was caught on US soil, Zacarias Moussaoui, plead guilty and is spending the rest of his life as a guest of the Federal Prison System? You claim to be a Professor of Constitutional Law…I’m guessing even you should be able to understand (5 small brains on SCOTUS not withstanding) the difference between those situations?

Obama’s “Nay, nay, nay, nay” moment was from CBS:

"What they are trying to do is what they’ve done every election cycle which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid, to win elections, that’s what they’re trying to do," Obama told reporters on a flight to Washington D.C.

Why Barack, you almost got one right! Yes, we on the Right do intend to use terrorism as separating point in this election. However, I can’t give you full points for your answer. Americans are not afraid to win elections. They are however, afraid of giving elections to people who have a view of the world that is myopic and pollyannish to the point of putting the safety of their families at risk.

June 17, 2008

The Next Fuel Shoe To Drop?

by @ 5:19. Filed under Corn-a-hole.

I wrote yesterday about the likelihood of a dramatic increase in corn prices due to the damage done by the floods.

I found this article today, where a commodities analyst is claiming that due to the crop loss from the flood, corn could go to $16/bushel.

What????? It wasn’t that long ago that corn at $4/bushel was nearly laughable. Today, corn futures have moved to over $7.90/bushel.

Well, I got to thinking….we use some of this corn to make ethanol. Most states require an ethanol blend for automobile fuel. What’s the impact of increasing corn costs going to be on our fuel costs?

To date, the financial impact of adding ethanol to the fuel has been a benefit to consumers. Even today, ethanol sells (OK, I’m not mucking this with all the subsidies it gets that we pay for via other taxes…let’s just keep this simple) for under $2.90/gallon. The easy math says that if your average fuel is around $4/gallon and ethanol is less than that, then blending the ethanol is having some impact of bringing the total price down on a gallon of fuel.

Now let me scare you:

Look at what has happened to the price of corn futures in the past month:
In less than two weeks, the price of corn has moved up 18%. With corn a major ingredient of ethanol, these price increases should have an impact on the price of ethanol….and they have.   Just look:

During that same two weeks ethanol futures have increased 13%. But corn is only at $7.90, what happens if it goes to $16/bushel? A quick back of the envelope says that $16 corn would easily translate to $5 ethanol.

Hmmmmm, now unless our fuel cost per gallon exceeds $5/gallon, the ethanol additive will actually increase the overall cost per gallon!

One more reason to shelve ethanol: Acts of God (read that floods, hail, drought, etc.) have a much more dramatic effect on agriculture than on drilling or mining.

Drill here, drill now, pay less!

June 16, 2008

Well, Which Is It?

by @ 5:38. Filed under Politics - National.

In February, Michelle Obama visited a day care center  in Zanesville, Ohio.   While there, she  encouraged Americans to eschew careers in corporate America.   Instead, she encouraged folks to go into “helping” jobs…jobs that obviously wouldn’t pay as well but that made everyone more zen like:

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do," she tells the women. "Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."

In essence, Michelle was telling America to give up on “doing your best,” “striving to achieve,” or working to better themselves. Michelle was telling America that settling for less than everything you wanted to be was OK and should be expected.

In May, as he was trying to gain the last few delegates to gain the nomination, Barack told an Oregon audience “to settle” and not expect that the life styles we have in America can continue:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …

Today, Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by giving an address at the Apostolic Church of God. After calling on black father’s to become active in raising their children, Barack gave some additional parenting advice:

He said parents who proudly tell him their child gets great grades, all B’s, should encourage them even more.

“All B’s? Is that the highest grade?” Obama said. “It’s great that you can get a B, but you can get a better grade. It’s great that you’ve got a job, but you can get a better job.”

Let’s see, should I settle or aspire? Should I give in or do my best? Should I just “get by” or is the possibility of the “American Dream” something that we can still pursue in America?

I’m so confused!

Are You Ready For Higher Food Prices (redux)

by @ 4:41. Filed under Miscellaneous.

On May 6th I wrote that higher requirements for ethanol use would likely drive food prices higher throughout the year:

On March 31st, the USDA released its crop estimates for the year. Included was an estimate that acres planted with corn were going to drop 8% from the 2007. Even with the reduction in acreage the overall crop yield should be about the same as 2007 which was 13.1 billion bushels.

So we’ve got lots of corn, that’s good news.

Here’s the bad news.

in 2007, approximately 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol was produced. The 2007 Energy Security Act requires that 9.0 billion gallons of ethanol be produced in 2008. 2.8 gallons of ethanol come from each bushel of corn. That means that nearly 1 billion additional bushels of corn will be required just for ethanol production this year.

What do you think will happen to food prices when overall corn production is flat but corn demand for ethanol increases by nearly 50%? They sure as heck aren’t going down!

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 54% of Americans finally understand that burning food is hurting their pocketbook.

Maybe we aren’t a nation of sheeple afterall.

I’m sure you’ve all heard that there’s been a bit of extra moisture in the upper Midwest. Iowa, Wisconsin and Southern Minnesota have been hit hard with excess rain. Flooding of major cities or tourist destination in these areas have made the headlines of the MSM stories. While some attention has been paid to “flooded fields,” I haven’t seen anything report quantifying or talking about the impact of those soggy sowings.

The first sign that there are problems came in this update from the USDA. They have reduced their 2008 corn crop estimateby 400M bushels. That however, may be the good news in their report. Also contained in their latest update is that 2.5M acres are still unplanted, 1.3M of those are underwater in Iowa. The likelihood of successful plantings in these areas are greatly diminished and it is expected that in the next USDA update as substantial portion of those acres will be removed from the “expected to be planted” column.

Let’s say, conservatively, that only the Iowa acres are left unplanted. 1.3M acres at 148.9 bushels per average acre (which is very conservative as the yields in most of Iowa tend to be higher than the national average) means that nearly 200 million  additional bushels will be taken out of the 2008 forecast.

So let’s recap:

  • The original forecast said 2008 total corn production would be the same as 2007
  • Due to increased mandates, we will use at least 1 billion more bushels for ethanol production
  • The latest crop estimates say we are now producing 400 million bushels of corn fewer in 2008
  • The next estimate is likely to say the 2008 production will shrink another 200 million bushels of corn.
  • The full impact of flooding on the corn crop will not be known for a few more months.

A total of  600 million bushels of corn short from last year’s production with another 1 billion going to ethanol.   That means a total of  1.6 billion fewer bushels of corn that will available for food.

I didn’t major in Economics, only managed a minor, but what I did learn suggests that shrinking supplies and increasing demands don’t generally work towards the reduction of prices.  

I wonder which countries Barack will tell first that that due to our requirements to burn food for fuel, they won’t be able to eat at all?

Update: I’m beginning to feel like Carnac. Here’s an article from London Reuters talking about this exact issue.

June 13, 2008

Change We Can Believe In?

by @ 5:09. Filed under Politics - National.

Chuck Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, has been a vocal proponent of the windfall profits tax.   In fact, Schumer was co-sponsor of the bill that was defeated this week in the Senate.   Schumer’s rationale for the windfall profits tax was pretty straight forward:

"Oil companies are wracking up obscene profits while American families are stretched to the limit by skyrocketing gas prices," Schumer said. "It’s not asking too much to redirect a portion of these companies’ windfalls to rebuilding our roads, bridges, and tunnels that are in serious need of repair."

Schumer actually believes that some level of profit is unwarranted.

Interestingly, a year earlier, Schumer had a different perspective about obscene profits. In 2007, Schumer stood in the way of a windfall profits tax on investment fund executives who reaped enormous incomes.

From the NY Times:

But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives.

Schumer’s hypocrisy is not noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the advice he was giving his Democrat colleagues when they wanted to increase the executive’s taxes:

"Unintended consequences often occur when you do major tax work. And you have to be careful," Mr. Schumer said in the interview, held in his office just off the Senate floor.

Wow, unintended consequences! Obviously Chuckie had figured out all of the consequences of a windfall profit tax on the oil companies…or maybe there was nothing that was unintended?

But wait, the best is this…Schumer had found a way to ensure that the bill would fail. He tied other industries to the tax. Industries he knew no one would possibly look to increase taxes on:

But in his conversations with Wall Street executives about the tax proposals, Mr. Schumer said, he has told them that he would oppose a tax increase as long as it did not also apply to other industries, like energy and real estate.

So let’s recap:
A year ago, it wasn’t fair to impose a windfall profit tax on one industry
A year ago, Schumer thought that energy companies were off limits for increased taxes
In the last year, Schumer has continued to fleece Wall Street execs for contributions to the Democrats

Maybe Schumer should be planning Obama’s campaign strategy. At least Schumer’s hypocritical and self serving change in position over the past year is change we can believe in!

June 11, 2008

It’s About Time!

by @ 5:05. Filed under Energy.

Yesterday the Republicans formally introduced a petition that would force immediate consideration of the No More Excuses Energy Act (H.R. 3089). The act has over 50 authors, representing at least 24 states. The act is brief and to the point with a focus on growing energy production in the US. The act reads:

No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007 – Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the taxpayer election to expense the cost of certain refinery property not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow the issuance of tax exempt facility bonds for the financing of domestic use oil refinery facilities; (2) extend through 2018 the tax credit for producing electricity from wind facilities; and (3) allow tax credits for the production of electricity from nuclear energy, natural gas production, and carbon dioxide tertiary injectant processes.

Requires the President to designate at least 10 sites for oil or natural gas refineries on federal lands and make such sites available to the private sector for construction of refineries.

Prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from denying an application for nuclear waste disposal on the grounds of present or future insufficient capacity.

Terminates all existing federal laws prohibiting expenditures to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities in the Outer Continental Shelf.

American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act – Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of Alaska.

Repeals the prohibition against producing oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Sets forth requirements for the sale of oil and natural gas leases in the Coastal Plain, environmental protection, transportation easements, and royalty payments to Alaska.

Establishes in the Treasury the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund to assist Alaska jurisdictions that are directly impacted by oil and gas exploration and production in the Coastal Plain.

The act has been held up in committee since July of last year. It will require signatures of by two-thirds of the House members to move it to the floor.

I consider getting the required number of signatures a long shot but it should show who’s willing to “walk the walk” and not just “talk the talk!”

Make sure and ping your Representative, especially if they are a Dem and encourage, cajole, harass them until they sign the petition! If they don’t, this ought to be all the ammo required to put them in the unemployment line in November.

That’s it, I’m Done

by @ 5:00. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

Yesterday the Senate had the “wind fall taxes” on oil companies bill before them.   In a 51-43 vote, the Republicans were able to kill this ignorant, patronizing and pandering bill.

Unfortunately,    6 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, they were:

  • Grassley, IA
  • Collins, ME
  • Snowe, ME
  • Smith, OR
  • Warner, VA
  • Coleman, MN

And it’s that last vote that makes me say I’m done.  

Coleman is a RINO in every bad connotation of that word.   He was a Democrat for years and became a Republican only because it was expedient for him to do so to further his political career.

Coleman believes in global warming, he believes in cap and trade, he won’t drill in ANWR, he has a lifetime Conservative voting record of 68.

I don’t like his position on many issues but I could give him some cover under the “we’ll agree to disagree” argument.   However, when a simple issue like artificially taxing a business because you don’t like them, comes up and he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to vote NO, than I will show him how it’s done.

I will not vote for Coleman in November.   Neither will I vote for Franken.

I wonder if the Libertarians have a candidate for Senate?  

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

by @ 4:25. Filed under Miscellaneous.

This article claims that Roger Clemens and other MLB players take Viagra to enhance their, ah, “game performance!”

No, really, the BALCO folks claim it’s better than other “nutritional” supplements players can take.

So I’ve got a couple of questions (pardon my Al Franken impression):

  • I know it’s strengthens wood but how does it work with Aluminum?
  • Would you need to wear a special cup during the game?
  • What would happen if the team had provocative cheerleaders?   Would the game get called?

The mind reels!

June 10, 2008

I’m Not The Al Franken I’ve Known For 57 Years

by @ 5:56. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

From AL Franken’s “apology” over “satire” aritcles that were anti woman and pornographic, given at the Minnesota Democrat convention on Saturday:

It kills me that things I said and wrote sent a message … that they can’t count on me to be a champion for women, for all Minnesotans. I’m sorry for that. Because that’s not who I am,” Franken told delegates.

Does anyone else notice a similarity here?

Barack Obama at an April 29th press conference:

The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.

Now it’s bad enough when you’re surprised by the behavior of someone you’ve intimately known for 20 years but how bad must it be when you don’t recognize yourself after 57 years?

Is there some kind of a “How to make an excuse” handbook being handed out this year by the DNC?

 

A Not Made Up Inconvenient Truth

by @ 5:10. Filed under Taxes.

Barack Obama came out yesterday hammering John McCain over his support for making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.   Instead of extending the cuts, Obama wants to remove them and reinstitute higher rates for people he considers “wealthy.”

Along with increasing personal taxes, Obama is now calling for increasing taxes on oil companies.   Obama has the mistaken belief that taxing the oil companies will somehow make Americans feel better about increasing prices  for gasoline.   Of course one item that Obama has overlooked in this effort is that the result of his additional taxes will either be higher costs for gasoline as the oil companies pass those taxes along or higher costs for gasoline and oil companies are disincented to produce gas and lower supply will drive prices higher.

And here is where the inconvenient truth comes in….

Barack Obama believes he can increase revenues to pay for all his social support programs by increasing taxes. That simply won’t work.

Tax increasing on corporations get passed along to consumers in the form of increased prices which causes consumers to buy less of the product which minimizes any tax increase and in some extreme situations, can actually reduce the overall taxes remitted.

Tax increases on individuals don’t increase revenue either. A new and significant economic law states that regardless of what the individual tax rates are, total taxes collected will equal 19.5% of GDP. This law has been dubbed Hauser’s Law after the man who did the research.

According to Mr. Hauser, the reason the rate stays constant is:

What makes Hauser’s Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As Mr. Hauser said: “Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation.”

Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.

Now here’s where the truth become really inconvenient.

Allowing fuel prices to continue to increase will have one certain impact on the American economy, it will hurt it. Whether for truck traffic, farming, commuting for work or driving for commerce this economy relies on fuel for transportation. If we increase the price of fuel we will either increase costs or decrease transportation. Either one will ultimately have a negative impact on GDP.

Someone ought to take Obama aside, point to Hauser’s law and help him understand that no matter what he does to taxes, he won’t get any additional income without an increase in GDP. Also, to the extent he increases fuel costs or restricts transportation by either by his cap and trade nonsense, windfall profit tax, no drilling anywhere, anytime mentality, betting on “green” solutions that are no where near viability he will hurt GDP and in turn, drive revenues lower.

It must stink to be a socialist when your only real solutions are to turn back to the free market and capitalism and cry “Uncle!”

June 9, 2008

A New Class Of Human?

by @ 5:02. Filed under Miscellaneous.

On March 31st, at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama made the following statement:

When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include "” which should include abstinence education and teaching the children "” teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include "” it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information."

Amongst other things, this statement shows that contrary to Barack’s earlier contention,

No one is pro-abortion and I do not sanction infanticide

That he made at Benedictine University in October, 2004, he is not only pro-abortion but also believes that abortion is an acceptable means of birth control.

I’ll admit that having a Senator with the most liberal Senate voting record, supporting abortion and its use as a contraception may not be big news. But even the most liberal Senator must have limits?

In August 2002, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIP). The act confers the status of “human being” on any child who survives an abortion attempt. The implications of this is that it imposes a requirement on doctors to take necessary action to support the life of the child and not “perform an abortion” by simply “shelving” the child and allowing it to expire as a result of neglect.

Interestingly, the Born alive Infants Protection Act was was passed by unanimous voice consent of the US Senate. It was passed even though Barabara Boxer was unable to confirm or reconcile in her own mind that a baby; breathing, heart beating and separated from its mother was actually alive.

While his time in the Illinois Senate and particularly while he was Chairman of the Illinois Health & Human Services Committee, Barack Obama had an opportunity to pass a similar bill for Illinois. Obama had numerous reasons why he didn’t want to pass a BAIP bill for Illinois. Jill Stanek  does a fantastic job of deconstructing Barack’s objections to passing such a bill. As Jill points out in her article, all the objections that Obama had were removed by the wording of the Federal bill which the Illinois bill mirrored, except for one. When “Born Alive” was defined as having the child separated from the mother, Obama balked. He refused to amend the Illinois language to mirror the federal language because a: the bill would have surely passed and b: any definition of “life” in a bill that deals with an abortion issue is seen as being the start of a slippery slope that radical abortion rights advocates don’t want to go near.

Today I saw this article about a boy born in the UK, despite an attempt to abort him at eight weeks. While suffering from a kidney defect, the boy is expected to live a normal life.

So here’s what I’m trying to figure out…

There was an attempted and failed abortion attempt on this boys life.
In spite of the attempt, he survived to be born.
If he lived in Illinois, what would he be? Barack Obama doesn’t believe that he is a “human person” or even that classification as “member of the species homosapiens” is applicable. So what is he, alien?

Is the definition of new species the change that Obama is always talking about?

A $3 Billion Dollar Question

by @ 5:00. Filed under Health, Miscellaneous.

Today, The Independent runs a story with the headline:  

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

The article covers how, despite predictions by the World Health Organization and UN Aids, that AIDS would become a world wide epidemic within the heterosexual population, it hasn’t.   The one exception is in sub-Sahara Africa.

After admitting that AIDS cases have been exaggerated by organizations to induce higher funding levels, the article defends the funding saying that there is still much we don’t know about aids.   It uses the sub-Saharan Africa area as an example of where the spread of AIDS is not full understood, even though it is admitted that the area has…

more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships

Still being stumped, the article closes by laying out the most perplexing of all AIDS issues:

The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?

The US is contributing and granting money to figure out why the AIDS problem is worse in DC than in North Dakota? You’re kidding right? How ’bout if we give them a hand?

According to the CDC, amongst males, 72% of AIDS cases are related to male to male sexual contact, 12% to injection drug use and 16% to high risk heterosexual contact (that is sex with a person know to or likely to have HIV). Further, 66% of AIDS cases are from either Hispanic or African American ethnicity.

OK, let’s look at North Dakota and Washington DC:

  • According Gaydemographics.org, about 5% of DC’s population are same sex couples, .5% of ND’s couples are same sex. I think that’s 10X.
  • According to the US Census, African Americans were 55% and totaled approximately 325,000 people in Washington DC. They accounted for about 1% and 6,500 of the North Dakota Population. That looks like 55X.
  • According to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Treatment Data Statistics, for 2002, the most recent year statistics are available, North Dakota had 7 cases reported for heroin treatment. Washington DC had 2,218 reported. That looks like 317X.

Maybe it’s just me   but one of those key factors sure seems to explain the 100X difference all by itself.   I’ll bet smarter people than I could come up with multiple combinations of the above items for numerous other simple ways that WHO could have a reasonable answer for why Washington DC and North Dakota have a   discrepancy of HIV cases.

To be sure, HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease and there are certainly cases where innocent victims i.e. children, transplant patients have contracted HIV/AIDS with no involvement on their part.   However, 99%+ of the HIV/AIDS cases in the US are contracted as a result of an individual’s decisions.   For WHO or any other organization to take another $.01, that could be used on cure research, to waste on inane research such as ND versus DC, is not only a blatant wast of resources but should be a personal insult to anyone desiring a cure for this disease.

I wonder how much of the nearly $3B that the US spent on research in FY2006 I could claim for that 10 minutes of research?

Anyone Notice A Trend?

by @ 4:35. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

On Saturday, Minnesota Democrats endorsed Al “It’s just satire” Franken to be their candidate for US Senate.   The MSM had the usual glowing reports making it sound like  Al is the perfect candidate and that the Dems are over flowing with love for their candidate:

ROCHESTER, Minn. (AP)– Al Franken won a resounding endorsement for the U.S. Senate on Saturday from Minnesota Democrats, quickly dispatching with concerns about jokes that offended some and promising a tough challenge to Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

However, not unlike Barack Obama’s coronation last Tuesday, not all is as the MSM would like you to believe. From the Star and Sickle:

Mari Urness Pokornowski of Cokato, president of the DFL Feminist Caucus, resigned Saturday when she learned that her group had endorsed Franken. As a mother and former teacher, she said, she didn’t see how Franken’s writings represented rural Minnesota values.

The endorsement, she said, “was a choice made by the caucus, and once that decision is made, you have to make a choice where you stand, For me, my decision was to step down.”

And further from Politics in Minnesota:

There’s no doubt that Pokornowski has had a tough week as head of the caucus.

After U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president after a bruising battle with U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, Koryne Horbal, 71, who founded the DFL Feminist Caucus, said she would not support Obama and wanted to organize a write-in campaign for Clinton.

Pokornowski was forced to issue a press release distancing her group from its founder’s actions. "It was as much of a surprise to us as it was to you," the press release said in part.

How many candidates can the Democrats run that lose the vote from Minnesota Women? So far, it’s 2 and counting

 

June 7, 2008

George Will For President!

by @ 10:52. Filed under Miscellaneous.

George Will is very funny….who knew?
It would have been very interesting to poll Colbert’s audience before and after the interview to see who agreed with George Will. I’ll bet it would have been less than 30% before and better than 70% after. We need to hire George Will to first teach McCain about conservative principles followed by teaching him to be able to deliver them in the way that George Will does.

Outstanding!

H/T Feddie

June 6, 2008

Hint: It’s Not Skull and Crossbones

by @ 5:52. Filed under Politics - Minnesota.

Thursday, Al Gore endorsed Al Franken to be the Democrat candidate for the US Senate  from Minnesota.   The endorsement caused the local, and some of the national media, to be all a twitter.   From the local Star and Sickle:

DFL U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken got a welcome boost on Wednesday with an endorsement from one of the more revered figures in the Democratic Party — former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore, who has become a crusading environmentalist since leaving elective office, sent an e-mail to DFL delegates on Wednesday afternoon that warmly praised Franken, calling him “exactly the breath of fresh air our government needs.”

I really don’t understand all the excitement.

If you’re not aware, Franken has been having some trouble with articles he’s written. The first was a 2000 article for Playboyin which amongst other things, Franken wrote about his son using the internet to write a report on bestiality. Another article, written in 1995has Franken making jokes about rape. Franken’s response to the article is that he did it as a satarist, it was a long time ago and Minnesota people know that that article is not who he is now. Like Barack Obama, Franken also tries to argue that the associations and activities of his personal life are not reflective of who he would be as a political leader. However, the article is so egregious and sexist, that even female Democrat leadership from Minnesota are asking him to remove himself from nomination.

Al Gore, if you remember, had his own problems with Playboy. In his 2000 campaign, one of Al’s California supporters had scheduled a fund raiser at the Playboy mansion. Al spent a great deal of time trying to reconcile his stated belief, that men and women were equal, with the fact that his fund raiser was being held at a place that clearly didn’t portray that perspective. While the venue was later moved, Al could never bring himself to return the contributions he had received from the various Playboy Executives. Like Franken and Obama, Al tried to tell us that the contributions didn’t reflect his views and were only a tiny fraction of the funds raised by the campaign.

So I really don’t understand the excitement of the endorsement. After all, they’re a part of the same secret society. As such, one would expect members of the society to stand and fully support one another.  

What society you ask?   No, I don’t mean the Secret Society of Al’s, I mean the secret society within the Democrat party that believes the objectification of women is a positive attribute.

June 5, 2008

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

by @ 5:00. Filed under Politics - National.

Tuesday night was the unofficial beginning of the Mano  a Mano Presidential Campaign.   Speeches from John McCain and Barack Obama set a framework for what we can expect the respective campaigns to focus on.

Obama began his positioning by recognizing McCain as a maverick:

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

But went on to paint McCain as “George Bush Lite”:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

McCain responded by quickly pointing to his maverick status:

You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They’ve seen me put our country before any President "” before any party "”

And there’s the problem.

McCain continues to run on a platform that is neither fish nor fowl. He wants to reign in spending but supported the housing bailout. McCain recognizes the impact that ethanol has had on our food prices but is blind to the cost increases that his cap and trade plan will cause. Unlike being bi-sexual where you have twice the chance for a date, being bi-political does not increase your chances, it decreases them.

Barack Obama tipped his hand in his speech when he approved of McCain being a maverick but derided him for not being maverick enough. Obama will use McCain’s bi-political record against him.    Obama cause Conservatives to sit out reminding them that McCain is the poster child for the problem within the Republican party where it has become acceptable to call yourself a Republican, and even argue that you are a Conservative, if you vote for Conservative issues 50.01% of the time. On the other hand, Obama will use McCain’s inability to be bipartisan on EVERY issue to ultimately separate him from the Hillary Democrats who are currently upset but will eventually rally to the party. After all, what better place for a group of people who feel like they’ve been victimized than back in the bosom of the Party of Victimization?

Obama doesn’t need to do much to affect the Conservatives. Simply putting McCain in a position of explaining why he isn’t President Bush will put the wedge in for them. For the Hillary Democrats the message is simple; the attached bumper sticker should sum up his argument to them:

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]